Nothing really happened in the LM that would suggest the strength of the gravity one way or another, except to say that there was some. Although the later scene with the two astronauts fighting certainly looked low-G.

how much sense any of the film makes as well as how lazy it all is. Not to mention how laughable it gets when the penny drops about what exactly is going on on the moon.

Lazy? It's the most faithfully accurate re-creation of Apollo-era tech that I've ever seen. I mean ever.The plot is a matter of personal taste. I thought it was quite creepy and nicely done. Yeah, it's just a creature-feature - the kind we don't often see anymore where the monster remains mostly unseen. The setting is the ultimate isolation. The furthest from help that any human has ever been. Claustrophobic and lonely.The Cold war era paranoia was well-executed as well. And the Soviet LK module was re-created accurately.It was all really good, but you'd have to have had at least a passing interest in manned spaceflight to really appreciate it.

how much sense any of the film makes as well as how lazy it all is. Not to mention how laughable it gets when the penny drops about what exactly is going on on the moon.

Lazy? It's the most faithfully accurate re-creation of Apollo-era tech that I've ever seen. I mean ever.The plot is a matter of personal taste. I thought it was quite creepy and nicely done. Yeah, it's just a creature-feature - the kind we don't often see anymore where the monster remains mostly unseen. The setting is the ultimate isolation. The furthest from help that any human has ever been. Claustrophobic and lonely.The Cold war era paranoia was well-executed as well. And the Soviet LK module was re-created accurately.It was all really good, but you'd have to have had at least a passing interest in manned spaceflight to really appreciate it.

Lazy as in lazily written. I don't care how accurate a set is if the film's story doesn't hold up. And that's this film's problem - aside from being utterly ridiculous and taking itself too seriously for that to work, it only has about 15 minutes of actual content that it pads out for what feels a lot longer than 90 minutes. This is something that a lot of POV films are guilty of, but just because other bad films do it too isn't an excuse.

It's been a while since I saw it, so you'll have to forgive how foggy I am on what I hated about it, but come on,

rock things that infect you with some sort of virus that makes you go all zombie-ish? They never even attempt a hint at an explanation as to what rock-aliens could possibly gain from having evolved the ability to infect others with a zombie-like virus. Especially as there's absolutely no indication of any other life-form on the planet.

Since they were found in a crater on the Moon's south pole, and nowhere else, it seemed strongly hinted that they came by way of meteorite (or spacecraft) that created the crater. That they are, in fact, from elsewhere in the galaxy. The whole thing sort of revolved around the deep crater, and the fact that the things have evolved parasitic traits, as well as the ability to camouflage themselves (neither of which are biologically unprecedented) indicates they originated elsewhere. The fact that they wound up on the Moon wouldn't be coincidental, since the absence of an atmosphere means that objects reach the surface without atmospheric ablation. The idea of extraterrestrial organisms hitching a ride on comets or meteorites is not a new one - it's been suggested that this is how life came to Earth. So it's really not that 'ridiculous'.

I don't think it was so much a "zombie virus" as simply an infection, with erratic behaviour as a side-effect. Nothing particularly far-fetched about that. Not like, say, a baby alien busting from your chest or something.

the extremely unlikely collision between the Soviet LK and the Apollo command module at the end. That'd be nearly impossible even if you were trying to do it. That and the fact that the footage was ostensibly found in a NASA vault, but it wasn't explained how they managed to actually get the reels back from Lunar orbit.

I think if you want an action-oriented detective story in Victorian setting, the first 'Sherlock Holmes' movie is the right choice and the sequel is something you should consider based on your opinions of the first.

The second Sherlock Holmes movie was hardly that complicated that it required a setup, or any other movie to get "into it"Nor did any events in part 1 happen to be essential for the second part.Part II worked much better as "stand-alone" movie than Part I (which was very prequel-y in nature).

I think if you want an action-oriented detective story in Victorian setting, the first 'Sherlock Holmes' movie is the right choice and the sequel is something you should consider based on your opinions of the first.

The second Sherlock Holmes movie was hardly that complicated that it required a setup, or any other movie to get "into it"Nor did any events in part 1 happen to be essential for the second part.Part II worked much better as "stand-alone" movie than Part I (which was very prequel-y in nature).

I'm sure it'd be more enjoyable had you seen the first one first - especially to explain who the hell Rachael McAdams was. It works on it's own, but it's also not as good of a film, so you might as well just watch the first.

Anyway...

Rocky V

By far and away the worst film of the 'Rocky' saga - but not as bad as I was lead to believe. It basically turns 'Rocky' into a soap opera and plays out like a standard episode of such, with Rocky having troubles with his wife. It's worth noting that the final fight sequence in this film is different to the others in that here it's an alleyway brawl rather than an official boxing match. That's pretty much all the film gives us that's new though, as this is largely more of the same - but more of the same is still reasonably entertaining when it comes to 'Rocky'.

So there you have it, it's the worst of the bunch, but it's not THAT bad. It's certainly easy enough to watch if, like me, you're making your way through the 'Rocky' franchise. It's certainly a good thing that Stallone made the decision to not end the saga here, though...

5/10

Rocky Balboa

And here we have, surprisingly, the best of the 'Rocky' sequels. It's a bit ridiculous and feels like something of an off-shoot from the other films which is understandable given its 16 year gap from 'Rocky V', but it capitalises on pretty much everything that worked in the other 'Rocky' films. It's somewhat derivative, but really, who cares? It's not like the other films are above this, and if the end result is enjoyable, it's easy to let that slide.

7/10

A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas

If you've seen either of the first two films, you basically know what to expect from this one. It's more of the same, except with a Christmas twist and half of the jokes being meta-gags about stuff being in 3D - which, cheap as it sounds, is actually pretty funny. This isn't quite as good as the first film, but it's certainly a step up from the 2nd and whilst the plot is disjointed and messy - essentially feeling like a series of comedy sketches where only about 50% of them actually work, it has enough moments to keep you happy as well as Neil Patrick Harris and the addition of a wonderful new character: Wafflebot. It's no masterpiece, but it's a reasonable comedy that'll pass the time and really that's all I think one can expect from Harold & Kumar.

7/10

Puss in Boots

I was hugely, pleasantly surprised by this film. I always had a hunch that the 'Puss in Boots' spin-off would bring some new life to the tired 'Shrek' franchise and would certainly be the first entry in the franchise that one could consider decent since 'Shrek 2', but I didn't expect to actually love it to the point that it would be my 2nd favourite film from Dreamworks animation studios after the first 'Shrek'. The reason the film works for the most part is that, exactly like 'Shrek', it takes a number of classic fairy tales and nursery rhymes and blends them into one 'medley' of sorts with a modern, irreverent spin on everything. Due to the 'Shrek' films before it, there's only really three classic fairy-tales on show in this film (Jack and the Bean Stalk, Jack and Jill and Humpty Dumpty), because the others had all been 'done', but that makes it a simpler affair and I think the simplicity works in its favour to a wonderful degree.The film is genuinely funny - though it's far from laugh a minute. It clearly would rather that the story feels sincere and remains engaging throughout as opposed to sacrificing that in favour of some pop-culture joke where Puss sings "Who Let the Dogs Out?" or something.And I suppose that one of the other reasons the film works so well is the character of Puss. Puss was one of the saving graces of 'Shrek 2' that managed to just about make the film work and it works just as well here - if not better because he gets more screen-time. Puss is essentially just Zorro, but better because instead of just being Zorro, he's also an animated, talking cat.

So yes. 'Puss in Boots', whilst formularic to the degree that 90% of family films are, is a valiant effort and one that's furiously entertaining and full of charm and imagination.

8/10

The Plague of the Zombies

Typical Hammer horror in that it's cheesy as hell, devoid of originality and yet charming in some odd sort of quaint, British way. This one plays like a remake of films such as 'White Zombie' (with it pre-dating 'Night of the Living Dead', flesh-eating zombies weren't a concept that anybody had thought of yet). But yes, there's little more to say than that. It has its charms but it's far from anything special although it's certainly amongst the better Hammer horror films of those that I've seen.

5/10

Mission: Impossible

A reasonably well put-together action film with a decent not-quite-Bond-but-similar-but-different-enough premise that's interesting and with some pretty good action set-pieces, all let down by the presence of Tom Cruise not playing a douchebag (I can tolerate Tom when he's actually playing a douchebag because you know, then it's believable - in a film like this where you're meant to like him, it puts an awful strain of my suspension of disbelief). Anyway, yes, a decent effort but nothing hugely special at the end of the day.

6/10

And most relevant of all:

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

It's a noticeable step down from the first film which was, for all of its flaws, terrific fun. Like the first film, Downey Jr. is on terrific form in a brilliantly manic approach to the classic character and his homo-erotic interplay with Jude Law (Watson) in one of his few bearable performances makes for effective and funny, if somewhat cheap and obvious entertainment - their banter certainly does wanders to carry the film.

But that's more or less where the good things present in the first film stop carrying over to the sequel. Whilst the first film was streamlined and simple, the sequel is bloated and the plot is very messy. One of the reasons that the first film worked so well was that it was, very much, a mystery - which is what Sherlock Holmes stories should be. This film is barely a mystery - it turns Sherlock into more of a psychic than a detective and the big mystery of the story is more of a series of action-movie twists than a properly plotted mystery that you can piece together yourself.

One of the biggest complaints I had with the first film was that the villain was so bland a character in a role that so desperately called from someone as brilliantly charismatic as Downey Jr. for him to play off of. I really thought that the sequel might improve upon that aspect, especially given that the villain in this one is Sherlock's infamous arch-nemesis, Moriarty. It's a sad shame, then, that Moriarty is every bit as bland as the first film's bad guy.

In fact, the characters largely let down the sequel. Whilst we still have Sherlock and Watson, Rachel McAdams as Irene Adler was one of the best things in the first film - more than anything because she had good chemistry with Downey Jr. She makes an appearance in this film, but dies in the first 5 minutes in a clear bid to get rid of a character played by an actress who's very picky with her roles and didn't want to come back for more than a cameo. As if it wasn't bad enough that Sherlock mourns this woman that he's supposed to be in love with for all of 2 minutes, she's then essentially replaced with Noomi Rapace as a pointless character whose only job in the story is to allow Sherlock and Watson access to a group of gypsies. Stephen Fry plays Sherlock's brother, Mycroft, but in this case, he's criminally under-used because his 5 minutes or so of screen-time are 5 of the few minutes of the film that really work properly.

So for those reasons alone it's a let down compared to the first, but let's add in countless little things that really bugged me. There's too many to list here, but the most noticable would be

...the way in which Sherlock survives that gigantic fall at the end of the film without even so much as a scratch and with absolutely no hint of anything even resembling an explanation, made all the more annoying by the implication that Moriarty didn't survive and the fact that this was the critical, climactic resolution to the events in the story. Can you imagine if 'Die Hard' had ended with John McClane grabbing Hans Gruber and pulling him off the side of that building with them both falling to their deaths, only for John to get up and walk away afterwards, but with Hans dead? That's essentially what this film gives us.

But for its many, many, many flaws, it's still a reasonably entertaining bit of fare with a few exceptional scenes dotted around and the wonderful performance of Robert Downey Jr to help carry it all. It's more of a franchise miss-step than a full on crash and burn and with a little hope, they can pull it back together with the inevitable 'Sherlock Holmes 3'.

I expected to despise this film. I watched the Swedish adaptation of the book and was bitterly disappointed to find that in spite of all of its hype, it was a generic thriller and a very dull one at that.I'm pre-disposed to dislike English-language remakes of films anyway and knowing that this one was close to 3 hours in length... well... it was a surprise then that I sort of loved it. Maybe that's a bit strong, but I certainly really, really liked it.

It's somewhat meandering, climaxes in the middle and keeps going with bizarre scenes that feel like epilogues and at times, it just feels like David Fincher is re-treading 'Se7en' and 'Zodiac', but hell, it's gripping, absorbing and at times, it's genuinely hard to watch - which is a good thing because that's what rape scenes should be like. Horrible. So yeah, it's a somewhat bloated and messy affair, but it's also a solidy written, acted and superbly directed film. One that was so good, I'm actually excited for the sequels. It pisses all over the Swedish film at very least.

8/10

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

As a 'Mission: Impossible' film, it's arguable the best in the series. I say that without having seen the third entry, but my understanding is that the first was supposed to be the best of the original trilogy and this easily gives the first a run for it's money. Ultimately, I'd probably just about side with the first as it's more streamlined and drags less, but it's close.BUT - I didn't go to see this to see another 'Mission: Impossible' movie. I have no real interest in the franchise. I went to see this to see another Brad Bird movie - his first live-action movie (you may know him as one of the geniuses from 'The Simpsons'' early dads or the director of 'The Incredibles', 'Ratatouille' and the masterpiece that is 'The Iron Giant'). I couldn't wait to see what he brought to this film and the end result is a mixed bag.On one hand, the visuals - particularly during the action sequences - are just beautifully framed and choreographed. Everything about it reeks of his animated work with regards to framing, movement and so forth. This aspect of the film was a joy to behold.On the other hand, the film was consistently incredibly 'flat'. That's somewhat ironic given Brad's background in animation but I suppose it's also somewhat logical. He's used to framing shots and the like, but he's not used to things such as lenses for instance. So what we have here, is a messy bit of direction that mixes exemplary with the mundane. Hopefully he'll grow with his next few films to become the incredible live-action director he could be.

Oh, and regardless of the direction, the film is let down by a bland action-movie screenplay. The action sequences are mostly all fantastic, but the story holding it together... not so much. And this is a problem as there's a fair bit of talky nonsense in-between each set-piece. So yeah... it's not a bad 'Mission: Impossible' film, but it's not exactly a particularly good film either.

6/10

Daria in 'Is It Fall Yet?'

Whilst 'Daria' was entering a surprisingly mature and well-written period around the time that this TV movie was produced, it's still a TV movie that falls into the standard trappings of the TV movie spin-off. It just feels like an extended episode of 'Daria'... and in many ways, it has less storyline than your average episode, too. I understand that 'Daria' doesn't have much potential for an outing that really feels cinematic, but it feels as if the makers of this thought that setting it during Summer would be enough. It isn't.

That said, in spite of the mundane plot, it's impossible to not enjoy on some level thanks to the witticisms 'Daria' spews out left, right and center. It's as enjoyable as watching 3 average episodes of the show back to back.

7/10

Daria in 'Is It College Yet?'

Pretty much as good as the first one. This is the show's finale, though, so it's a shame that it's not even half as amitious or good as the last episode of the show was. However, it's somewhat saved by the fact that it's able to wrap things up somewhat and give you a story you wouldn't normally see on the show.That said - just as with the previous 'Daria' TV movie, it does just feel like 3 mediocre episodes stuck together, but just as with the previous one, I'd still get a reasonable amount of enjoyment from 3 episodes stuck together.

7/10

Mr. Vampire

I'm not sure how much of my enjoyment of this film came purely from witnessing the cultural differences between the Western and Asian world when it comes to vampires and how much of it was genuine enjoyment from the film but I can say that this is a fairly typical example of a Hong Kong comedy with regards to its somewhat cheesy, slapstick tone. It's great fun as a result, but it also was very rarely GENUINELY funny. Rather, it just managed to raise a smile here and there in the same way that classic Laurel and Hardy shorts do. I mean... they're not genuinely funny either, are they? They're more sort of... charming?Anyway, it's a decent horror/comedy with some good martial arts fight-scenes, but it's not particularly remarkable in any area so that's that. Review over.

Sherlock Holmes 2: I enjoyed the shit out of it, but as an action/adventure film. It was significantly less Holmsian than the first one, which wasn't very Holmsian itself. Holmes is about deduction, not shooting and blowing things up. Still, what can you expect? It's a film made to appeal to modern cinema audiences, whose average intelligence is somewhere around the level of Chimpanzee. They hoot and screech in glee at empty spectacle and flash. They hurl their own poo at the cerebral.

The Muppets: WOOOOO!! Ahhh, nostalgia. That Jason Segal is a clever dude.

^ When are they going to make another Dirk Gently episode on BBC?He's cooler than Sherlock.

Chonmage Purin (A Boy and His Samurai)Cute story about a single mother and her young son who go out one day and discover an Edo period samurai hiding outside their apartment not knowing how he got there and confused about the world he finds himself in.The woman who at first thinks he's crazy, but lets him stay with them where he helps out with the home duties while she goes to work.While applying his bushido code to modern day housework he becomes a master of baking cakes and sweets and enters a father-son cake baking competition with the womans son, who he has become like a surrogate father to.

The People vs. George LucasInterviews with nerds on how George Lucas ruined the franchise and became everything he fought against, good for a few chuckles, and there's some whacky fanfilms in there (good to see fanedits.org get a mention)C+

BronsonTom Hardy plays a crazy prison guy who punches everyone..."Does he punch..."HE PUNCHES EVERYONE!"Ok, jeez..."Hardy's fantastic in it and quite amusing but the story is basically him going to prison a lot and then going a bit mental, and as previously stated, punching everyone.B-

Secondhand LionsWalter (Haley Joel Osment), a young boy, is dropped off at his great-uncles' house for the summer by his horrible mother. Walter's great-uncles, Hubb (Robert Duvall) and Garth (Michael Caine), are eccentric old men who have gained a fortune through mysterious means. Walter begins to ask questions, and the brothers' fascinating back story is revealed. This movie was ridiculously touching. I highly recommend it.9.5/10

Some idiots would have you believe that all that went before was golden, that you should never revisit the past, learn from or even acknowledge the work of our forefathers. People always bitch about remakes, which they decry as some perverse and craven attempt by shadowy, rapey, big studio types to desecrate their childhood memories while at the same time wringing every last penny out of the self same hypocrites who'll end up watching it anyway just say they can bitch about it on internet forums.

Thankfully, Nicolas Cage doesn't buy into all that. Loved the film! Love films that send chills down your spine. Great acting and directing, Nicholas Cage's acting was especially captivating in every way and he gives credibility to every scene as you can identify with him on every level. Its sad that this movie is so unappreciated, I guess people don't know how to accept a movie that doesn't have blood and people dying all the time or ott CGI. Its a sin that Cage didn't win an Oscar for this.

I've heard much hype about the H&K movies, but I never really looked up to them. About 10 minutes ago, I finished watching the first one. It wasn't exactly "smart" humor, but it was pretty funny in general.

To start off, I was amazed at how what should be a simple plot, turned into a crazy plot with many events. The racial jokes were funny. The best ones were probably the Apu references by the 'posers'. The Princeton scenes were great, I mean who would want to miss a crazy Asian party or a game if battle-shits?

The best moments were either Freakshow, or the hilarious black man. It's not everyday that when you crash your car in the woods, that you get a gross redneck to pick you up, bring you to his house while singing choir songs. But the best scene involving Freakshow was definitely when he walked in on H&K with his wife and her tits were popped put of her shirt. "What are you doing with my wife?" "You said we could fuck her!" "No I didn't " "Yes you did!" "Oh, did I? Well then go ahead! Hey, while I'm in the mood let's make it a foursome!"

The black guy had the best line in the entire movie: "They put me in jere for being black. I'm fat, black, and smart. People have been making fun of me my entire life. But life will get them back, that's the way the universe unfolds. I also have a really big penis, that keeps me happy!". The dick cop was pretty funny too. "That black guy's trying to escape " (H&K run out of their cell) "He has a gun!" BG:"It's a book!"

Overall, the movie was pretty funny. I enjoyed the NPH scenes and the cheetah ride. I look forward to watching to watching the next movie in the series!

Legal Notice & Disclaimer: "Futurama" TM and copyright FOX, its related entities and the Curiosity Company. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, duplication or distribution of these materials in any form is expressly prohibited. As a fan site, this Futurama forum, its operators, and any content on the site relating to "Futurama" are not explicitely authorized by Fox or the Curiosity Company.